The first question one should ask themself is whether the IGES data from CATIA accurately reflects the internal CATIA. To this end some Boeing sites use a program (written by Boeing) which creates a second CATIA model from any input CATIA model. This program runs as a batch job on MVS and uses Dassault evaluators to grid numerous points on all the curves and surfaces in a model. We then IGES both CATIA models out. The assumption is that CATIGE can surely do points correctly. Using IGES_CHK, we can now determine that the CATIA IGES file of curves and surfaces lies at the same locus as all of the points in the CATIA IGES file of points. This proves the validity of the IGES curves and surfaces. The second question one should ask themself is whether a given CAD system hears the CATIA IGES well. To this end we ask our suppliers to import the CATIA IGES and to echo it back as a second IGES file. The second IGES file is compared back to the CATIA IGES file. If the check is favorable, we assume the CAD system translated the CATIA IGES well. These checks are to be executed by the supplier.
In any case, it would be prudent for anyone using IGES as a translation tool to run some sort of validation check to verify the integrity of the data coming from the sending CAD systsem.
The SW Import diagnostics tool should NOT be used on imported files with out customer approval because it would defeat the D6-51991 spec.
The STEP format has virtually replaced the IGES format but Boeing does not have a validate program for STEP files.
The STEP AP203ed2, 210, 214 224, 238 Application Protocol will accommodate GD&T data so hopefully this will be the new standard soon...CATIA will export the STEP 203 ed2 format. ISO_10303
Please help me with this topic as it may shape new enhancement requests for SW.